Skeletonized versus Pedicled harvesting of internal mammary artery: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

There are two recognized internal mammary artery (IMA) harvesting techniques during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): pedicled and skeletonized. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes of the two harvesting techniques. A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted from inception till June 2023. Thirty-one studies with a total of 13005 patients met our inclusion criteria. The results from the included studies were presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) with its relevant standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, while Odds Ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous variables. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and the results were pooled using a random effects model. The skeletonized IMA demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of sternal wound infection (SWI) compared to the pedicled IMA (OR = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32-0.66]; p = 0.0001). The conduit length used was significantly longer in the skeletonized IMA (WMD -2.48, 95% CI, [-3.75, -1.20], P = 0.0001) and a significantly higher postoperative flow rate was observed while using skeletonization compared to the pedicled harvesting (WMD -13.11, 95% CI, [-22.52, -3.70], P = 0.006). However, no significant difference was seen in mortality between the two techniques (OR = 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.41]; p = 0.05). Pedicled harvesting demonstrated significantly reduced incidents of MI (OR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.13-1.69]; p = 0.002), while significant results in graft patency were observed favoring pedicled harvesting over skeletonization (OR = 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.98]; p = 0.04).
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)